Chapter Five

Onir‟s My Brother…Nikhil and Ganguly‟s Arekti Premer Golpo

5.1. Introduction

Onir‟s My Brother…Nikhil and Kaushik Ganguly‟s Arekti Premer Golpo, located in different time and spaces within India make use of a documentary apparatus. Both the films adopt film within film strategy, to weave fact with fiction. On these grounds the films are grouped together in this chapter. As has been mentioned earlier, thiscriterion in putting them together does not limit the focus of analysis.

5.2. My Brother…Nikhil

Anirban Dhar, known as Onir, is one of the few openly gay film makers in India. He was born in a Bengali family living in Thimpu, Bhutan and later shifted to Kolkata, India for his higher education and career. Surprisingly, in a country where homosexuality is still legally considered a crime punishable under section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, Onir went on to win the state instituted national award, for his film I Am in 2010 in which one of the four stories, deals with the harassment of a gay person by a police officer under section 377. With his first Hindi/English feature film My Brother… Nikhil, he showed Bollywood film makers that a gay love story can be told on the Indian screen sensitively, to the mainstream audiencethat is heterogeneous, without generating controversies or creating stereotypical laughing stock caricatures. My Brother…Nikhil is Onir‟s first low budget feature film, as an independent director and co-producer. Though not a blockbuster at the box office, the film brought accolades to Onir and established him firmly as a film director. It won more than 10 international awards. The film had an interesting production history. Recounting his pre-production experience Sanjay Suri in his foreword to the screenplay of the film, mentions that when they were looking for producers for My Brother…Nikhil, many refused to fund the film. He mentions, “…most of them were not used to making films with subjects dealing with HIV/AIDS and homosexuality. It was considered loss-making project on paper” (2011: 01). Hence, Onir

161

and Suri decided to generate funds and produce the film on their own. The film, then, was produced under Four Front Productions, a joint venture by Onir, Sanjay Suri, Vicky Tejwani and Raj Kaushal. Surprisingly, after the production, looking at the merit and its potential to tap the market, Karan Johar offered to and did distribute the film, under the Yash Raj Films banner.

The film was inspired by the real-life and tragic death of a Wild Life photographer, a young man from Goa named Dominic D‟Souza, the first Indian to be diagnosed with HIV. However, the film did have a tough time with the Films Censor Board of India. In an interview given to a TV channel at the Amsterdam Indian Film Festival, Onir disclosed that in a meeting with the members of the film Censor Board, he was told to feature a disclaimer stating that the film was fictional or it would not get a certificate from the board (“Gay India: Onir director of My brother Nikhil”, 2009).

The film was not promoted as an HIV/AIDS film or Gay Film for the fear that this would result in undesirable responses. A critically acclaimed Hindi remake of Philadelphia with a heterosexual AIDS victim, Phir Milenge had sunk at the box office despite UNDP25 support and controversies over Mehta‟s Fire and Razdan‟s Girlfriend were fresh.

The film received mixed reviews. While many praised the film for a sensitive handling of the theme, Somini Sengupta (2005) termed it as “a tear jerker- a story of forbidden love and its social consequences” and “part of a new breed of Bollywood pictures known here as the "multiplex movie" appealing to an urban middle-class audience, peppered with English phrases and easy on the song-and-dance numbers and potboiler story lines usually associated with Indian commercial cinema” (n.p.).

5.2.1. Story in a Nutshell

The story is set in the southern, formerly Portuguese state of Goa. Nikhil (Sanjay Suri) is the youngest sibling and the only son in the Kapoor family. Nikhil‟s father, Navin Kapoor (Victor Banerjee) is a North Indian from a trading community whose family might have settled in Goa long back. He runs an antique furniture store. He is married to

25 United Nation’s Development Programme.

162

Anita Rosario (Lilette Dubey) a Christian, who is proud of her Portuguese connection. Anamika, (Juhi Chawala) Nikhil‟s sister, is a school teacher.

Nikhil‟s father grooms Nikhil to become a sportsman and imposes his dream of becoming one on Nikhil. Nikhil receives a scholarship from the Sports Ministry and later on, is offered a job in a bank. While Nikhil loves, adores and follows his father as his hero, he has different aspirations and plans for his life which he is never able to articulate due to his father‟s dominating personality. Nigel De Costa (Purab Kohil) is a researcher at the Institute of Oceanography, whose parents, though from Goa, have settled in Dubai. Nikhil meets Nigel at a party and they fall in love with each other. Anamika meets Nikhil‟s friend Sam Fernandez (Gautam Kapoor) at a party and they too fall in love with each other.

One day Nikhil‟s team doctor calls him up and tells him that he is diagnosed with HIV. Nikhil breaks down on hearing the news. The news goes viral in the city. His team and his friends abandon him. Despite Anamika‟s request, his father throws him out of their house. The mother helplessly follows his father. Nikhil moves in with Nigel who then takes care of him. However, Nikhil is summoned to the police station and is later locked up in an abandoned dirty sanitarium outside the city. Overcome by the humiliation and to avoid the shaming gaze of society, Nikhil‟s parents decide to leave Goa and go to Bombay. However, Anamika decides to stay back and support her brother in his struggle as well as look after the family business.

Anamika, Sam and Nigel approach Advocate Anjali Menezes (Shweta Kawatra) to fight Nikhil‟s case on their behalf. They open an appeal and awareness campaign to bring Nikhil home. After three months, Nikhil receives release orders and moves in with Nigel. Nikhil comes to know that he has lost his job because his office fears that they will get infected by Nikhil. Nikhil instead of putting up a fight against this discrimination decides to stay home and give lessons in music to children. In the meanwhile Nikhil‟s parents come back for Anamika‟s wedding but do not ask Nikhil to come home. Eventually Nikhil develops AIDS and his health further deteriorates. At last his father, overcome with grief brings Nikhil home. Nikhil dies after some days. Anamika, Nigel and Sam start

163

an NGO named People‟s Positive in Nikhil‟s honour and continue to work for people who are HIV positive, in India.

5.2.2. Analysis

In various interviews as well as in his director‟s note (2010), Onir mentioned that he was moved by the real life story of Dominique D‟Souza, the first known HIV positive case in India, while he edited some documentary material on him. Dominique was a wild life photographer and a swimming champion. He was gay but his family did not acknowledge it even after his death. After being detected with HIV, Dominique started working as an activist to support other HIV Positive people. He died in 1992. “Nikhil was born out of Dominique”, Onir reveals (2011: 100). As mentioned earlier, he wanted to put in the film that it was inspired by a real story but when he showed it to the Censor Board they conditioned that he had to put a card, saying, it was all fictitious otherwise the censor would not pass. As a result, the film put a disclaimer before the opening scene. (Figure 117) There are many possible interpretations of the board‟s decision; one being the then Censor Board‟s conservative and homophobic attitudes.

Figure 117: The disclaimer at the opening of the film. MBN.

A Queer Love Story in a Family Drama Template

It is clear from Onir‟s interviews that the politics of acceptability by mainstream audience was more important than the politics of identity or the politics of pleasure. The major characters from whose perspective the story gets told are, Nikhil‟s sister Anamika and

164

Nikhil‟s lover Nigel. However, the title of the film is My Brother… Nikhil, and, not My Lover…Nikhil. Commenting on this Onir said:

One of the central themes of the film is a gay theme but I knew if this was perceived as a gay film people wouldn‟t come and see the film. Therefore for me it was very very important that the people in India see the film. And that was one reason why the film was called My Brother…Nikhil and not My Lover…Nikhil, you know…because it was telling a story of a brother from the point of view of a sister, which is again a very special relationship in India… and how the audience start loving this character till they discover that he is gay… and by then.. they already, you know… are liking the character so they don‟t easily reject it… so it is a very careful positioning because I wanted it to be released in mainstream theatres where people get to see the film. (“Gay India: Onir director of My brother Nikhil”, 2009 [Researcher‟s transcription])

This facilitates an interesting reading of cultural understanding that a film from the non- Western world can offer. The understanding of the role of familial relations in affecting perspectives and bringing acceptability is probably not much explored or familiar in the Western cinematic discourses. The title, "My Brother…Nikhil," places the film squarely in the realm of family relationships. The film opens with the sea side montage which begins with a 3 year old Nikhil and 5 year old Anamika and closes with both of them as grownups (Figure118-20). The title song, Le Chalein Le Chalein (Let it Flow), plays in the background throughout the montage.

Figure 118-20: Nikhil and Anamika as kids, teens and grownups. MBN.

165

The montage and the song establish the siblings as companions with a very special emotional bond. Both occupy considerable emotional spaces of each other‟s lives. In the next frame Anamika is seen talking to the camera. Anamika not only becomes an agentive voice for her brother‟s aspirations and tribulations but a validating authority of his love interest. The narrative begins as an emotional journey of familial relations but gradually and diplomatically navigates its audience through a profound and delicate love relationship between Nikhil and Nigel. Rather than offering much insight into the politics of sexual desire, the film focuses on sensitizing those mainstream audiences, who in all probability are either biased, homophobic, ignorant or a-sensitive. This becomes clear from Onir‟s comment on his decision to use the family template in Bollywood style. He says:

[…] the language of the film, the codes... that are used in very traditional Indian cinema… like there is music… there is [sic] songs…the film centres round the family which is very important in India. And I wanted to do it like that because I didn‟t want my film to be just going to the festivals and people for whom it [is] meant don‟t see it. (“Gay India: Onir director of My brother Nikhil”, 2009 [Researcher‟s transcription])

Configuring Drama with Documentary Apparatus

One of the prominent facets of the film is that, it uses the template of docudrama to narrate a story of love, loss and struggle, the sentimental staples of contemporary Indian cinema. The director did not want to make just a documentary film on Dominique‟s struggle, for it would involve legal censorship issues. However, he did not wish to make the film sound like a fairy tale. So he came up with the configuration of drama with a documentary apparatus. The characters talk to the camera recounting their part of the story related to Nikhil. However fictional this may be, their accounts offer verisimilitude. As there is a shift from documentary camera lens to the recounted episode the text mentioning time and place appears in the corner of the frame.

166

Figure 121. Anamika (Juhi Chawla) and Ms. Kapoor Figure.122. A recounted event. MBN. talking to the camera. MBN.

The film configures a unique style of storytelling in that it uses the documentary film apparatus mixed with the cinematic conventions of mainstream Indian Cinema (read Bollywood). More than just a stylistic choice, the docudrama configuration serves as a tool in different ways in this film. First of all, there are three narrative levels; the entire film has a hetero-diegetic narrator that is conceptually the director, who controls the narrative from the first frame to the last; the second narrative level is the homo-diegetic narrator. There are many characters in the film from whose point of view certain events are narrated. The multiplicity of narrators allows the story to be told in a non-linear style. Hence, there is a high level of audience involvement in the narrative. The non-linearity of the narrative grants editing a lot of scope to organize shots and scenes. A scene and/or shot gain significance precisely due to the preceding and following scenes or shots. Certain characters and events are positioned in a spiral manner. When the characters or events reappear in the same diegetic space and time the viewers get a different camera angle and different perspective, thus revealing a new dimension or interpretation. This is particularly applicable in the case of romantic relationship between Nikhil and Nigel. It is through Anamika‟s perspective that Nikhil and Nigel‟s relation is made visible in bits and pieces and then, the narrative introduces Nigel‟s. Only after the preceding scenes that establish Nikhil and Nigel as congenial characters and fast friends, does the narrative reveal their romantic relation.

167

Framing the Queer through Different Lenses

The film is able to offer various points of view. The technique of multiple points of view enables the audience to see the opposing views juxtaposed as well as make them realize how, what exists around them, is not available to be seen neutrally; how what is seen reflects their own phobias, dreams, desires, episteme or lack of it. In the film a team is making a documentary film about the life of the central character, Nikhil. What adds a dramatic value to the documentary film is that Nikhil‟s perspective is not available directly as the shoot begins in 1993, one year after his death. So Nikhil appears as a mystery to be unraveled through multiple lenses. In doing so, the film troubles the very idea of monolithic truth or identity of an individual. The access to Nikhil‟s dreams, desires, struggles and sufferings is availed only through the perspectives of his family members, his friends and others like the police constables, doctors, and nurses.

It is interesting to observe how the narrative unpacks the notion of homosexuality through multiple narrative voices. Mr. Kapoor who works hard to release his unfulfilled desires true though Nikhil does not like to be called “my little boy‖. He associates this expression with unmanliness. This becomes apparent in one of the scenes where he scolds Nikhil for not concentrating on his training.

Ms. Kapoor: Now stop it. Don‟t harass my little boy anymore. Mr. Kapoor: „My little boy‟, you are making a sissy out of him. (MBN)

The expression “sissy” means a timid and unassertive person but it is also used in a derogatory sense to refer to a man with „feminine‟ traits. Given that the setting of the narrative is Goa, the characters frequently code switch between Hindi and English. However, access to a word such as sissy also suggests that Navin Kapoor had access to the Western homophobic diction. It is known through Ms. Kapoor and Nikhil‟s diary that Nikhil loved painting and music but his father imposed on him, to take up a “masculine” hobby such as sports. His efforts become a lifelong project of making a „man‟ out of his son. For him besides sports, marriage falls in the paradigm of „manhood‟. In a scene where the family is discussing Nikhil‟s marriage, Nikhil says, “I am not in a hurry for

168

marriage or fatherhood.” Mr Kapoor quickly asks: “Why? Is there any problem?” The only time when Mr. Kapoor is directly confronted with a question about Nikhil‟s sexual life, by the camera, he reacts: “Now that he is no more, why do you want to spoil his name? He had many girlfriends; his marriage was fixed with Leena… He was a perfectly normal boy…(49)” Mr. Kapoor‟s reluctance to admit that Nikhil was gay, even after knowing it, speaks volumes about the relentless stigma attached to homosexuality.

The second perspective comes from the police personnel when Nikhil is arrested and forcibly taken to the sanatorium. One of the constables remarks: “Kis ke sath masti ki? Ladaka tha ya ladaki? Ya Dono? Kya jamana aa gaya?” (Who did you have fun with? Was it a man or a woman…or both? … What times we live in…) (46) The understanding of the police personnel, that is representative of state machinery, is limited to the sexual act as „fun‟ and a privilege of educated and urban class.

In interviews to the camera, Nikhil‟s friend Kelly says: “This is what happens when you go against nature, against God” (49). In another instance Kelly, as if clearing his conscience of any homosexual connection with Nikhil says: “He was a little strange you know… I wasn‟t really a part of his friend circle” (52). Kelly‟s views, as understood from his phrases, are informed by the views of orthodox Christianity. It also becomes a comment on how religious beliefs or prejudices cross over the territories. Besides, Kelly has a mischievous smile when he says “he was a little strange you know…”, thus establishing his superiority by value judging Nikhil. His distancing himself from Nikhil‟s friend circle talks less about Nikhil but more about his homophobia.

Figure 123: Nigel in a state of shock after his house is attacked by a homophobic crowd. MBN.

169

While recounting his experience in fighting a legal battle for Nikhil‟s right, Nigel notes, “the press here is treating him (Nikhil) like a pervert…” (51).The viewers also get to know the homophobic mob psychology in a scene, when Nigel returns from the „Free Nikhil‟ campaign; he is devastated to see that his house has been ransacked by a hysteric mob. The camera captures this moment in a mid shot in a low angle. In the frame, there are broken and scattered plant pots, Nigel in the centre of the frame, sitting in a state of shock; in the background above Nigel‟s head the word “FAGGOT” is written on the wall (Figure 123). The sense of horror Nigel experiences at that moment is enhanced by the non-diegetic background score. The mise-en-scene gives a shattered state of Nigel in the mid of secluded setting. The use of low angle shows his inability to fight the hovering and devastating reality in which he is caught.

Thus, what the narrative effectively does is assemble the point of views of people which echo common perceptions informed by the dominant homophobic discourses, with which a Western audience or one who has exposure to the Western discourse can easily associate. The linguistic expressions “sissy”, “masti/fun”, “against god”, “against nature” “perversion” and “faggot” refer more to the Western paradigm of homophobic discourse. One may wonder if this is the reappropriaton of spatio-temporal history of the region for the sake of a transnational audience. If so then it betrays any claim of verisimilitude which the documentary technique tries to achieve.

Juxtaposed to these is Anamika‟s point of view. While talking to the camera she mentions Nikhil‟s diary. It is through this diary that Anamika gets access to Nikhil‟s innermost emotional turmoil and secrets; a closeted world that she shares discriminately maintaining its privacy.

Figure 124: Anamika reading Nikhil‟s diary. MBN.

170

After Nikhil is tested positive, Anamika asks Nigel:

[…] I think you should go to Bombay and get yourself checked. (Nigel looks at her surprised.) Nigel, I know and … I love you. (Nigel hugs Anamika and breaks down in her arms). MBN.

The non-diegetic background score reinforces emotional state of Nigel and Anamika. This is the moment that elevates Anamika to a position above others including her father. Hers becomes the position of a sensitive, considerate and liberal individual. Anamika does not see the relationship between Nikhil and Nigel strange, unnatural, sinful or shameful. She in fact puts it at par with her emotional bond with Nikhil. As mentioned earlier, Anamika becomes a validating authority and protector of the relation between Nigel and Nikhil. Her acceptance does not come out of compulsion but an understanding of relationship.

The scene of Nigel‟s bold assertion about his relationship with Nikhil is positioned in the narrative only after Anamika‟s acknowledgement and wholehearted acceptance. While recounting his experience after Nikhil tests positive, he tells the camera:

People thought it was a homosexual disease… All my tests were clear… huh… Our relationship had nothing to do with the disease…I was not HIV positive (49).

This is the first time the word „homosexual‟ is used in the narrative, that too in conjunction with „disease‟. Besides these scenes, there is no explicit or implicit mention of homosexuality. What dominates the narrative then is the cinematic imagery of emotional bond between Nikhil and Nigel which is discussed later.

Twin Taboos of HIV and Homosexuality and Abject Queer Body

Though there are a few instances in the narrative which explicitly showing the prevalent homophobia, the focus shift of the narrative, on what happens to Nikhil after he is infected with HIV, becomes more or less the metaphor for the possible treatment he

171

would have got, had he been found to be in a same sex relation. The narrative of AIDs moves within the discourse of shame / family honour disowning, discrimination, punishment and ultimate struggle for survival with dignity. These staples go with the discourse of homosexuality too.

Figure 125. Nikhil grieving after being disowned by Figure 126. Nikhil as an abandoned abject body. the family. MBN MBN

In the film, Mr. Kapoor recounts the club episode when he got to know that Nikhil had AIDS. He says:

Everything seemed perfectly normal… Then the waiter came and asked us to leave… Everyone except us knew that Nikhil had got AIDS….The same club where I used to go with my head held high… I was asked to leave from there. (MBN).

Mr. Kapoor reaches home beats Nikhil furiously till he bleeds. In anger he says: “You nearly killed your mother when you were born. Now you want kill all of us? Shameless… we cannot show our faces to anyone because of you…” (MBN).

Ms. Kapoor too reacts negatively: You were born prematurely, I just wish you had… today I wouldn‟t have to witness this … (MBN).

Nikhil is thrown out of his family. More than the horror of the disease, it is being disowned by his parents, which deeply hurts Nikhil. He cries as he leaves his house (Figure125). Families disowning their children is a common trope in Indian cinema. Besides love, concern and togetherness in the Indian middle class family, it is the „family

172

honour‟ which has the primacy over everything else, including the constituent members. Anyone who brings „dishonor‟ to the family is disciplined, punished or disowned. In the narrative it is Nikhil‟s HIV infected body that brings this dishonor. Hence, the parents irrespective of their gender position react similarly. Nikhil not only becomes the victim of his father‟s violence but is disowned by his parents. Furthermore, he is stripped off his dignity by doctors, nurses, police personnel and his boss at workplace and abandoned by his friends. The treatment he is meted with becomes corporeal punishment for carrying the terminal disease. The very infection makes his body abject and powerlessly subject to abandonment, discrimination and punishment. Since a same sex relation falls in the same paradigm AIDS becomes a metaphor for homosexual suffering. The figure 126 shows the compressed/defeated image of Nikhil‟s body against the background of vast emptiness.

Reconfiguring the Queer Bodies

The corporeal space of the queer subject is the most contested site in cinematic representation. An analysis of the construction of the images of male protagonists in My Brother…Nikhil is crucial in understanding the rhetoric of such a construction. The first image of the grown up Nikhil that the frame captures is a handsome, energetic, well muscled swimming champion. He is a singer, guitarist and a painter. There are no stereotypical mannerisms etched on his body. In short, he has no „overt‟ visible traits to label him „gay‟ in the „Western‟ or Bollywood‟s stereotypical sense. The second character is Nigel. Like Nikhil, he is a handsome, witty, straight acting guy. He is not into sports and he likes music. Unlike Nikhil, he loves to follow fashion, be it piercing, tattooing or trying outfits that are in vogue. He is not campy in his talk, behavior or dressing.

However, what complicates the understanding of the viewers about the protagonists is their transgressive histories of belonging. Nikhil and Nigel are located in Goa, a state on the southern west coasts of Indian Territory. It is a popular destination especially for white tourists due to its „Western‟ outlook. Its Portuguese colonial past adds to that historical status. Moreover, Nikhil is born in a family where the father is a North Indian (as the surname Kapoor suggests) and the mother is a Goan Christian of Portuguese

173

descent. Thus, the land and the family both have transgressing identities. Again, like Nikhil‟s character what complicates the perception about Nigel is his dual citizenship status. His parents are originally from Goa but have settled in Dubai. Moreover, Nigel stays alone in a house which is quite segregated from the rest of the city. Thus, the identities of both the characters are constructed more by their special and familial histories than their bodily traits.

Homoromance in Bollywood Style

According to David Bell (in Choudhuri 2009), queer reterritorialization is the reclamation of public space. Public space is what predominantly has a heteronormative culture or identity and can be appropriated and transformed to express a distinct homosexual identity. (37) In Bollywood‟s cinematic convention, romance more than often is presented as a public space on the screen, which is dominated by heteronormative culture. My Brother…Nikhil reappropriates this space through its homoromantic narrative. It reclaims the romantic territory by making its gay characters occupy those spaces that have so far been dominated by heterosexual couples. However, it needs to be noted that the narrative positioning of the queer subject, in this context, Nigel and Nikhil, does not give access to their erotic experiences probably due to the director‟s apprehensions about the imagined mainstream „heterosexual‟ audience and also the Censor Board‟s refusal to grant the „U‟ certificate.

Figure127-128 Nikhil while singing glances at Nigel adoringly. MBN.

174

The film brings out the relationship between Nigel and Nikhil in a very subtle way using various tools of signification. The first on screen moment between Nigel and Nikhil is a flashback scene at Geoffrey‟s Pub at Christine‟s party in 1987. Nikhil is singing Le chalein Le chalein… apparently for his sister Anamika. While lip syncing the lines “saath mein humko har dam tum paaoge ee” (every moment you‟ll find me always there for you), Nikhil glances adoringly to the left of the frame, the shot cuts into the next frame with Nigel in the centre. The camera lingers on Nigel‟s figure for two seconds and the shot cuts into the next frame. This quick glance shared by both the protagonists probably goes unnoticed by many, but a queer audience is swift in sensing this positioning. This also suggests that the camera does a little more than assuming characters‟ position from whose point of view, the events are recounted.

Till actually the viewers get to view Nigel‟s account of events, Nigel is always seen in the background either as a cheerleader at the swimming pool or rider buddy and the “bad influence” as Mr. Kapoor calls it or a friend who takes care of Nikhil in his turbulent times. It is after sixty nine scenes that Nigel talks about his relationship with Nikhil. This is probably the only part of the narrative that gives as many as eight uninterrupted scenes that reveal the intimate emotional bond between the two.

While sharing his memories of Nikhil, Nigel tells the camera:

How did we meet? I used to see him often at Geoffrey‟s…he was always surrounded by girls… but I always felt though he was with them he was not really interested… you know what I mean (MBN).

The last bit of his sentence “you know what I mean” suggests that the camera shares the same understanding of same sex attraction or desire. However, Nigel does not use the identity term „gay‟ even a single time nor does he discuss the dilemma of being „gay‟. This very absence of the „identity‟ crisis sets the narrative apart from the usual metropolitan narrative of sexual identity. The scene then cuts to Geoffrey‟s Pub in 1987.

175

Figure129-131: Exchange of gaze between Nigel and Nikhil. MBN.

Nikhil as usual is surrounded by girls. However, he notices Nigel‟s presence and gazes at him (Figure129). Nigel returns his gaze (Figure130). The gaze is sufficient for both of them to realize that they are attracted to each other. Nikhil encouraged by this approaches Nigel. This results in a little flirtation between the two (Figure131). This very smooth exchange between them is suggestive of their understanding of their own sexualities and sexual desires. Nigel‟s ability to understand Nikhil‟s interest hints at his gaydar ability. The term “gaydar” is a blend of gay and radar which within the queer culture means the ability of a gay person to sense similar feelings in another person when he is not carrying any „obvious‟ signs. Gaze is instrumental here. Only this far does the narrative allow access to the homosexual desire between Nikhil and Nigel. It is in a very heterogeneous public space like the pub that the queer gaze meets and desires are expressed. The film probably takes this image of meeting gazes between two gay guys, comes from the Western pool of images. The „pub‟ culture in Goa allows the film to exploit this possibility.

Nikhil‟s „double standards‟ are the reason that Nigel used to feel irritated of. Just like any lover, Nigel‟s fears were that of losing his lover to a heterosexual marriage. For Nigel Nikhil‟s inability to tell his parents about his sexuality was the double standard. The camera depicts this tension between the two, very effectively in an event that is recounted twice in the film. It‟s the scene where Anamkia, Sam, Nigel and Nikhil are at the beach after dinner with Nikhil‟s family. Anamika announces that Nikhil and Leena are getting engaged.

176

Figure132-36 Nigel‟s saddened face. Nikhil approaches Nigel to explain but he slaps him. MBN. Nigel remarks: “Wow, childhood sweethearts reunited! How touching” (MBN). Nikhil reacts violently, “Touching my foot. I don‟t want this marriage nonsense….” (MBN). Anu then recounts what she saw in Nikhil‟s room in the morning: “… was that kiss with the Missan accident or did I imagine it all?” (MBN) The camera cuts to the next scene. What is interesting here is that the entire scene is recounted from Anamika”s point of view. She knows her brother well, still she is not able to know his feelings and emotional bond with Nigel and that he is not into girls. It is only when Nigel recounts the same episode while discussing his problem with Nikhils “double standards” that the viewers are able to see as well. The camera assumes Nigel‟s point of view. The viewers then have access to Nigel‟s expressions, who is troubled on hearing that Nikhil and Leena kissed and probably are going to get married (Figure 132-33). When Anamika and Sam walk away, the camera taking eye line position with a long shot overlooking the ocean, Nigel enters the frame followed by Nikhil rushing after him (Figure134). Nikhil tries to explain to Nigel: “Nigel, listen to me… it was a misunderstanding.” Nigel slaps him and leaves (Figure136). The scene is able to bring out Nigel‟s emotional insecurities and the emotional turmoil between the closeted lovers. This design of the narrative exercises control over the viewer‟s access to the characters‟ lived experiences. Instead of using a linear narrative technique it releases the story of gay lovers in bits and pieces.

The narrative provides an instance of the intimate emotional bonding between Nikhil and Nigel when they are at Nigel‟s place. Nikhil looks worried due to his blood reports which Nigel does not know. The conversation between them, in a mid close up, brings to surface more layers of their relationship:

177

Figure137-38 Tension between Nikhil and Nigel over „double standards‟. MBN.

Nigel: Why are you in a bad mood? Did Aunty call Leena for dinner yet again? Nikhil: (looking at Nigel annoyingly) why are you bringing up Leena? Nigel: (sarcastically) well, she kisses beautifully… Nikhil: I told you, she forced herself on me… Nigel: Forced herself! Next you‟ll say she forcefully raped me. My friend, it‟s important to take a stand in life… or soon your dad will force you into marriage… (Nigel moves from the bench and goes close to Nikhil, Figure137) Nikhil, these are double standards… (MBN) Nikhil grabs him by his collar and pushes him against the wall (Figure138). By giving access to these moments between Nikhil and Nigel, the film reinforces the idea that their relation is just as human as any other, whether straight or gay, Indian or otherwise. It is this politics of assimilation that the film brings into and hence the romantic love of physical intimacy takes a backseat. However, the imposition of the patriarchal heteronormative order by forcing marriage is highlighted effectively as the major cause of mental pressure for gay lovers.

Another thing that the film very sensitively handles is the issue of fidelity. In general perception, most men in same sex relations are promiscuous and a same sex relation lacks fidelity. Nikhil is disturbed to know that he is detected with HIV so he asks Nigel:

Nikhil: …Tell me something honestly… Nigel: What?

178

Nikhil: Have you been with anyone else besides me? Nigel: What are you talking about, Nikhil? (MBN) More than anything the issue of promiscuity brings a same sex relation in the frame of HIV AIDS. The narrative carefully keeps these two apart.

The emotionally most intimate moment in the film comes when Nigel reaches the TB Sanatorium and is deeply hurt by the fact that Nikhil kept such a serious matter away from him. More than their words the expressions that the camera captures, reveals deeper love and concern both have for each other. Nikhil and Nigel are in the centre of the frame. As they start talking, the camera slowly tracks from the left to the right capturing their emotions. Their faces are partly in soft focus, partly in the dark but their emotions are visible enough.

Nikhil: You are really upset with me, aren‟t you? Nigel: Of course I am upset… you hid such a big thing from me Nikhil. Nikhil: I didn‟t wish to hide it from you… but I myself didn‟t know what was happening to me, I just suspected… Nigel: you could have told me… Nikhil: I was scared Nigel… scared to face the truth… (MBN)

(Figure 139-42) In a close up centre position the camera pauses to capture Nikhil and Nigel‟s sobbing faces. Parallel to this visual track is the non-diegetic sound track, the violin playing the tune of “le chale le chale” which gradually creeps in and becomes a part of the ambience as Nikhil and Nigel burst into tears.

Figure 139-42: Nikhil and Nigel’s emotional outburst after the revelation that Nikhil is HIV positive. MBN.

179

From this positioning of the queer subjects, it becomes clear that more than the sense of betrayal; it is the deep concern and love that dominates their relation. The Bollywood styled melodramatic presentation of this moment; the emotional outburst of the characters and music reminiscent of title song in the background certainly invokes the audience to empathize with the characters. It is only after this scene that mention of the word „homosexual‟ is heard for the first time. This positioning is deliberately designed.

Once, the narrative has empathies established through this scene, the very viewing of the relationship between Nigel and Nikhil acquires a new significance. More moments of emotional bonding and proximity flow into the diegetic spaces that go on, to display the iconic images of romantic male bonding.

Figure 143-45. Phases of emotional bond between Nikhil and Nigel in the formation of queer couplehood. MBN With more and more images, the relation gets defined by care, concern, appreciation, sacrifice, taking out frustrations, tolerance and at times jealousy and insecurity (Figure143-145). Finally, the most iconic images of homoromantic couplehood occupy screenspace when Nigel recounts the last moments with Nikhil.

180

Figure 146: Elevated image of Nigel and Nikhil. Figure 147. Nigel‟s with Nikhil at his final MBN. moments. MBN.

After Nikhil‟s health deteriorates, Nigel wheelchairs him to the beach. The camera captures in the flashback, their frolicking moments of togetherness with only the ocean in the background. It forms a queer space of freedom from the surveillant gaze of the disciplining patriarchal heteronormative order. It is the margins of the ocean and land that become a site of their transgressive desires. The frames oscillate between their past and present moments while the title song Le Chalein Le Chalein plays in the background; the camera captures the elevated images of Nikhil and Nigel in a low angel shot. The camera not only adores them but treats them as superior. It is interesting to observe that the song as a commentary music suggests how the images seen are to beinterpretedemotionally. The song‟s overarching presence puts the romantic bond between Nigel and Nikhil, the sibling bond between Nikhil and Anamika and the familial bond in the Kapoor family on one scale thus implying a universal and humane appeal of these emotions.

Finally, when Nikhil is on the verge of dying, the camera captures Nigel‟s overarching mothering figure, caressing the cheeks of dying Nikhil, giving him every possible emotional sense of warmth. Even in the last moments when Nikhil is losing his senses, he thinks of Nigel. His last words for Nigel are: “Look after yourself. Be good… never think that you are alone…” (MBN).

Thus the story that begins as a love and loss story of a familial relation ends as a story of intimate male bonding.

181

Onir mentions in his interview that it is precisely this aspect of male bonding that made a lot of people in the gay community happy. “…they have used it to come out to their families… shown it to their parents. A lot of discussion has started in India where they have used this film as medium.” (“Gay India: Onir director of My brother Nikhil”, 2009 [Researcher‟s transcript]).

5.3. Arekti Premer Golpo/Just Another Love Story

Kaushik Ganguly‟s Arekti Premer Golpo was the first Indian film on queer sexuality to be shot after the decriminalization of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code by Delhi High Court in 2009. It was one of the most well received films at the I-View Film Festival 2010 in New York. The film received the silver peacock award in IFFA in 2010. Much like Onir‟s My Brother…Nikhil, Arekti Premer Golpo too was not promoted in the LGBT festivals as the director feared that “the openness would be lost then” (Nag 2013 n.p.). Ganguly co-scripted the film with Rituparno Ghosh. The film was the acting debut of Rituparno Ghosh, in which he essayed the role of a transvestite film-maker. Bakshi (2012) mentions, the film faced moral policing by the CEO of a reputed film theatre under the name of „aesthetic value‟ due to its content (111).

One of the central characters around whom the narrative revolves is based on and played by Chapal Kumar Bhaduri, the Jatra26 actor and the last female impersonator of open air Bengali theatre tradition. The extraordinary story of the actor arrested cinematic attention. The idea of the film was marketed initially with the title Chhaya Chhobi; however it was changed to Arekti… in the final production. The production of this film has an interesting history. Naveen Kishore (1999) made a documentary film, The Chapal Bhaduri Story: Performing the Goddess27 and Kaushik Ganguly himself made a Bengali

26 It is a popular folk form of open air Bengali theatre. It is spread throughout Indian states of West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Orissa and Tripura. The origin of jatra is traditionally credited to the rise Sri Chaitanya's Bhakti movement, wherein Chaitanya himself played Rukmini in the performance of Rukmini Haran ("The abduction of the Charming Rukmini") from Krishna's life story, a first definite presentation of this theatrical spectacle. 27The film is an intimate video biography that brings you face to face with a unique individual, discussing what it means to become a woman night after night, talking for the first time of the woman inside his male body, of troubled sexuality, of a long domestic partnership with his older lover, of the essential

182

telefilm Ushnotaar Jonyo (2002), for ETV Bangla which explored the same-sex relationship with Chapal Bhaduri, playing himself as both man and woman on stage, as the backdrop and a lesbian love story foregrounded. Roopali Ganguly and Kaushik‟s wife, Churny Ganguly, essayed the roles of lesbian lovers. Arekti… shifted its focus to a male homosexual plot. Both the films became prologue to Arekti Premer Golpo.

Speaking about the taboo around trans-identities in India, the director Ganguly said “Trans identities or the third sex, have been around since the mythological times, so this isn‟t a new issue at all. We think it‟s new because we‟re still recovering from the colonial mindset” (Reshmi Sengupta 2009, n.p.).

A review of the film in Times of India remarked that in Arekti Premer Golpo “…reality merges with illusion to drive home a contemporary truth: despite the Delhi high court judgment decriminalising consensual homosexuality, we're mostly unwilling to accept that humans don't always fit into the masculine and feminine gender roles assigned by society” (2011). In another review, Aveek Sen (2012) finds Arekti Premer Golpo, to be “deeply uneasy… about a man having a sexual relationship with other men”. He further adds that the film works “for an ultimately conventional local audience that tolerates homosexuality only as long as its story is told as the unhappy and hyper-aesthetic tale of a woman trapped in the body of a man” (n. p.). However, Bakshi (2012), praising the film and the actor Rituparno Ghosh says “ the decriminalization of homosexuality in 2009 did not create as much stir in the Bengali social scene as did Arekti premer Golpo and its lead actor” (124). Praising the director, Datta (2010) remarks, “Ganguly‟s film is an ode to the traditions of jatra, a powerful yet subtle statement on the intrinsic presence of trans- identities in Indian society…” (n.p.).

loneliness of living as a human being on the edges of conventional society— and showing how he metamorphoses into the goddess in order to perform her story.

183

Rituparno Ghosh: A Signifier of Queer Sexuality for the Bhadralok (Bengali Middle Class)

Rituparno Ghosh is considered an exceptional figure in the history of Indian and international cinema. He may be considered as Bengal‟s most celebrated film-makerafter Satyajit Ray. He “brought to Bengali cinema, a newness or modernity, by bringing certain issues out of the closet which were so far ignored or were not considered worth representing in “polite” cinema” (Kaustab Bakshi 2012, n.p.).What made him truly memorable was his success in fashioning himself during his final years, as a candidly in- between entity, neither fully male nor female, without losing his foothold from the Bengali middle-class imagination. Ghosh began to allow himself to experience and live out; the full measure of his self-styled androgyny, a part of his personality also began to sublimate the carnality of desire.

Ghosh believed in celebrating his sexuality. He boldly walked into public as a cross dresser with „feminine‟ jewellery. In an interview he said,

Whatever I wear has always been worn by men. Wearing things like earrings and necklaces has always been a part of our sartorial history and tradition. These were tagged as feminine frills during colonial rule and I don‟t see anything wrong in reinstating it. My point is why shouldn‟t I celebrate my sexuality? (Sengar 2013 n.p.)

With his „out‟ sexuality Ghosh became an indispensable signifier of queer sexuality in Bhadralok household, in Bengal. In the backdrop of this matter of fact detail, the character of Abhiroop essayed by Rituparno in Arekti…, acquires significance beyond its diegetic spaces.

5.3.1. Story in a Nutshell

Abhiroop Sen (Rituparno Ghosh), a Delhi based self identifying transvestite filmmaker, with his partner and cinematographer, Basu Roy visits Kolkata to make a documentary film on Chapal Bhaduri, the legendary jatra (Bengali folk theatre) actor, who in his prime

184

was known as “Chapal Rani”, highest paid actor, for portraying female roles at a time when women did not perform on stage, and who now strives to survive mostly by performing as Goddess Shitala for a small sum. Thus begins a journey where the director and the subject learn from each other.

Immediately after the shoot begins, a TV reporter with whom Abhiroop has an argument over the subject of the documentary, sensationalizes the film as an exploitation of actor‟s sexual life, by Sen. Newspapers too criticize the filmmaker. This results in protest against shooting by a group of Kolkata based Bhadrolok community. The community members call „homosexuality‟ an act of perversion and the filmmaker a pervert. Hence, the team decides to shift the shooting location, to a far off place Hetampur, a small town in Birbhum district in West Bengal.

The narrative has two stories in parallel tracks but intertwined: Chapal‟s story and Abhiroop‟s story. For the narrative simplicity an approach one after another is convenient. Chapal starts narrating his story which is impersonated by Abhiroop Sen with other actors in his crew. The viewers get to know, he felt from the beginning that he was a “woman trapped in man‟s body”. At the age of fifteen after the untimely death of his mother, Chapal joins Jatra as a female impersonator. Chapal slowly starts enjoying the attention of men and also having physical relations with them. Kumar (Indraneil Sengupta), one of his regular showgoers starts liking Chapal and develops an intense physical relationship with him. However, when Chapal is 20, women actors join theatre. The manager finds out Chapal‟s affairs with men. He asks him to leave the theatre and pay the debts by way of prostitution. Chapal, not finding any means to support himself approaches Kumar for help. Kumar does not offer any help. Chapal then leaves for Tarapeeth in search of new life. He meets Tushar (Jishu Sengupta), a Dharmshala manager. Tushar is a single man, who does not like the traditional way of „marry, breed and feed‟. Tushar and Chapal grow intimate and live together as partners for next four years.

One day Kumar comes looking for Chapal and requests him to return to Bhowanipur and take charge of his house. Chapal overcome by his love for Kumar, leaves Tushar. As

185

Chapal starts living with Kumar, he realizes that Kumar wanted him to take charge of the house not as the lady of the house but a free domestic help. Besides domestic chores, Chapal has to nurse Kumar‟s ill wife, Gopa (Churni Ganguly). One day Kumar brings home, Sheela, a Jatra actress who takes charge of the house as landlady and starts dictating terms to Chapal. Notwithstanding humiliation by Kumar and Sheela, Chapal leaves the Bhowanipur. Afterwards, Chapal lives rest of his life in seclusion, acting as the Goddess Shitala occasionally.

While Chapal‟s story is being documented the viewers get insights into overtly smooth love story of Abhiroop Sen and Basu Roy (Indraneil Sengupta). Basu‟s status as a married man worries Abhiroop. His failure to settle solely with Abhiroop further complicates their relationship. Abhiroop meets Uday Narayan Choudhuri (Jishu Sengupta), a France based Bengali wild life photographer, who offers to help him with the alternate location for shoot after it has been stopped by people in Kolkata neighbourhood. Basu grows jealous of Abhiroop‟s liking for Uday. Uday helps Abhiroop gain a new sense of self identiy. The convinced Abhiroop shaves off his head. In the meanwhile Basu‟s wife Rani (Churni Ganguly) arrives to surprise her husband with the news of her pregnancy. Her arrival increases the gulf between the lovers. While Basu is unaffected, Abhiroop grows insecure and lonely for the fear of losing Basu to Rani. In another dramatic turn of events the film shooting comes to halt second time, due to the objection of villagers of Hetampur for performance of Chapal as Shitaladevi. They fear the untimely arrival of Shitaladevi will bring bad luck to the village. Thus the story ends with Chapal returning to Kolkata, without performing as Shitaladevi, Uday flying back to France and Abhiroop moving on in life without Basu.

6.3.2. Analysis

Documentary Apparatus

The film like My Brother...uses a docudrama template. It opens with a hetero-diegetic documentary narrative voice over and a title card in English scrolling in, which reads…

186

The year is 1959. Satyajit Ray is on an award winning spree at International film festivals. Uttam Kumar and Suchitra Sen rule the Bengali silver screen.

And in the villages of Bengal, a young actor in his twenties, Chapal Kumar Bhaduri, more famously known as Chapal Rani Queen of the open air theatre, continues to captivate a million hearts. (APG)

The viewers are immediately told by the voice over that, this is an international project in collaboration with a UK based production. This very opening, positions the target subject within the contemporary international discourse of queer visibility. The template of the „international project‟ allows English to occupy major space of the narrative. Moreover, this positions its audience, as English knowing educated urban class. Kaushik Ganguly when asked in an interview did not shy away from confessing that he targeted the International film festivals and urban audience, as he was apprehensive of reception of the film in rural and provincial parts of Bengal.

Moreover, Chakraborty (2015) remarks that the opening title bears out a subtle satire on the heterosexual matrix of the Bengali society as Uttam Kumar and Suchitra Sen constituted the essentialised construction of heterosexual “romance” and when Satyajit Ray despite being the master filmmaker of alternate cinema, provided no voice for the alternate gender discourse, in his so-called “meaningful” cinema.In this backdrop, Chapal Rani is introduced as “Queen of the open air theatre,creating his own revolution for voicing the concerns of the oppressed” (53).

187

Frame 148: Chapal Bhaduri performing as Shitala Devi. APG.

In the next frame appears supposedly young Chapal Rani/ Queen, Chapal, performing the goddess Sitaladevi, draped in sari, bosom modestly covered and the third eye on her forehead as the symbol of divinity, the pitcher in the crook of one arm and the chamar in the other hand for blessing devotees.The inclusion of real life character gives a dimension of meta-narrative to the film. The goddess of plague is seen urging the local landlord: “the established ones gain man‟s respect. But one who has no status in the society be she ever so worthy, will always be ignored.” In the context of this speech, the preceding title card gains a different signification. Those like Chapal Bhaduri, who is outside the dominant discourse, are ignored and erased from the memory of society. The myth of Ma Shitala becomes a potent subtext to the film, contributing to the theme of forced seclusion and hiding the reality of body, that Chapal Bhaduri aka Chapal Rani had in his life.

This is followed by a montage of stills from present day (2009), Chapal Kumar‟s domestic routine, as he has turned seventy one now and lives on a meager amount of forty rupees per day. He lives in an enforced seclusion in his North Kolkata home except occasionally, when documentary filmmakers, known or unknown, show an interest in his “unusual” life story. Since Chapal Bhaduri is a real life person impersonating himself, the extra-diegetic spaces contribute to the viewers‟ sense of the screened persona.

188

Bhaduri comes from one of the leading theatre families of Bengal. His mother, Prova Devi, was an acclaimed actress of the Bengali stage and screen, from 1920s to 1950s, when majestic blank-verse dramas with lofty themes peppered with songs and music, were the norm. His father, Tara Kumar Bhaduri, was the brother of the revered Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, without whom the history of Indian theatre is incomplete. To add to the list of theatre persons in the family, there is his elder sister, Ketaki Dutta, an established actress. (Katyal 2001:99) However, the film does not offer a peep into these details of the character. This speaks of strategic focus of the filmmaker in positioning Chapal within the diegetic spaces of the film.

Additionally, the artist‟s performance of the goddess which Naveen Kishore‟s documentary film (1999) covers and provides rare access to unusual world of the artist goes missing in the film. The film instead focuses on intimate spaces in the artist‟s life. So, instead of the on stage performance, it‟s the off stage performance in the „personal‟ life of Chapal Bhaduri, that becomes a heritage site of Indian queer sexuality, as Abhiroop Sen calls him, “the first self-evident, self-confessed gay actor of the Bengali stage.” This brings out the politics of film to the fore.

Chapal‟s narrative builds slowly in the film-within-the-film. Chakraborty (2015) notes:

The film‟s narration works on two planes- one at the “fictional” scale where a gay documentary film maker Ahiroop Sen from Delhi comes to shoot to Calcutta with his partner Basu for a film on thespian Chapal Bhaduri, who is deemed to be the first self-professed gay actor on Bengali stage, and the other part of the narration works on the “real” scale, as the film pans into the flashback mode to peep into the life, or more precisely, the sexuality of Chapal Bhaduri (53).

In agreement with Chakraborty‟s claim, it is observed that, the film makes use of gaze as an agent of suppression, and also engages the audience in the visual narrative to construct the “meaning” of body in a deeply prejudiced culture (53).

189

Two Avatars of Male Androgyny

The onscreen construction, of the transgendered identities, is crucial aspect of the film. Chapal Bhaduri appears on the screen in two forms: female impersonator in his on-stage life and as a „man‟s in his off-stage social life. His continuous transition from „man‟ to „woman‟ and „woman‟ to „man‟ is space-governed. His „being man‟ becomes a performative act, governed by social mores. Ironically, his theatre performance which is conceived as a mimetic act by society becomes the space for Chapal to express his suppressed desire to be „woman‟ while his „being male‟ becomes a mimetic act which he performs merely out of the societal pressure. Chapal, thus manages to subvert the very idea of impersonation. For a lower class Chapal, the „performance‟ becomes a survival strategy.

Figure 149-50: Montage Introducing Abhiroop Sen. APG.

In contrast to Chapal is Abhiroop. The montage introducing Abhiroop (Figure 149-50) brings out this contrast.The audience‟s expectations are played with. As Basu calls the director, „babe‟, whom the viewers haven‟t seen yet, as a female figure is expected to be beheld by their sight. However, in the very next shot, the camera in close up shows, young Abhiroop who is in his bedroom with the towel wrapped around his head in womanly style, applying kajal or soot on his eyes. With the close of his face the viewers are able to see the ease, with which Abhiroop puts the makeup. There is no extra diegetic sound valorizing, questioning or ridiculing the appearance of the character. So denotatively the film structures the iconic signification of Abhiroop as a „matter-of fact

190

presentation. The scene is set in a luxurious hotel suit. Chakraborty (2015) comments, that “the very visual impact created is that of a problematic gender identity for Abhiroop, since he does not look like a “man” or a “woman” on camera” (53). This is unconvincing as looking like a „man‟ or „woman‟ does not become problematic for Abhiroop. He, in fact, comfortably carries himself. Abhiroop wears a phatua, a stole and a dhuti worn like a lungi. Commenting on Abhiroop‟s stylization, Rituparno Ghosh says that the androgyny comes through the way he is wearing these clothes, it comes through his body language” (Reshmi Sengupta, 2009 n.p.). Moreover, the cinematic language is not that of problematizing androgyny the way Chakraborty probably perceives.

Abhiroop is heard speaking in English with his crew member Momo and his partner Basu. For Abhiroop‟s resolute „womanly‟ dressing is a statement of his gender defiance. As the narrative progresses, Abhiroop is seen comfortably moving around in self fashioned gender defiant clothes and make up in public. Though this makes other people „uncomfortable‟ the cinematic narrator does not show any such discomfort.

The film represents Abhiroop and Chapal in an apparently hierarchical order. Abhiroop Sen is a young English-educated Delhi-based bourgeois film maker. He is shown in control and is extremely articulate. Abhiroop though Bengali his location „Delhi‟ gains a new meaning in context of the film. The film was released in December 2010, one year after Delhi High Court‟s landmark decision to read down section 377 of the IPC. He is well aware of the contemporary sexual identity politics discourses. He has access to the mass-mediated queer consumerist culture. It is a conscious choice and signifier of his identity. His education shows not only through his ability to shift between English and Bengali, but his „knowledge‟ and taste for cultural artifacts, such as Rabindranath Tagore‟s poetry, Abanindranath Tagore‟s painting, Mahaprabhu Chaitanya. Abhiroop Sen in a way becomes the face of India‟s Queer activism, which many scholars consider highly dominated by English-educated urban upper middle class (Ashley Tellis 2012; Bakshi 2012, Pushpeshkumar 2014).

Chapal Bhaduri on the other hand is an aging folk theatre artist, who comes from a humble background, lives in a small rented room in the suburbs of Kolkata, with his

191

brother-in-law and strives to make living through acting. He has no access to the post- liberal discourse of sexual identity or a language to articulate it. The only claim that he makes about his identity, is that he feels like a woman trapped in a male body. In Niladri Chatterjee‟s opinion (2009), it is Chapal Bhaduri‟s ability to hover in mid-gender, while resisting the label of transgender or transsexual that acquires a new usability, in the advent of queer theory. Within the larger dichotomy, Chapal is mostly positioned as a victim who is unable to be „out‟ as Abhiroop. This is particularly evident in a scene when Abhiroop takes off Chapal‟s eye makeup (Kajal/Kohl) prior to shooting the scene:

Chapal (in complaining tone): But you have worn kajal yourself?

Abhiroop: I wear it every day…do you?

However, for A.Datta (2015),

the scene suggests a certain fixed trajectory of being „out‟, modeled onAbhiroop‟s display of overt markers of gender variance, which discount the decades of Chapal‟s performance in female roles in jatra and pala- indeed, as Chapal‟s narration of hir history makes clear, apart from hir [sic] cross-dressing, hir [sic]sexual preference for men was also known within the jatra troupe. The complexity of Chapal‟s position and negotiations within hir social context thus defies any simple dichotomy between being closeted / repressed and being out / liberated (177).

What one can derive from this observation is that the „agency‟ becomes a new parameter to think of positioning of the two characters. Knowledge about Abhiroop‟s sexuality comes from his self conscious „out‟ statement while Chapal does not hold this agency but let people around him decode his behavior.

Through the juxtaposed scenes involving Chapal and Abhiroop, the narrative brings to fore social, temporal as well as diegetic positioning of these characters and introduces two avatars of Indian male androgyny.

192

Woman Trapped in a Man‟s Body versus Third Gender

The film complicates the overt and monolithic understanding of fluid sexualities of its characters. The most radical shift in construction of transgendered bodies in the narrative is the absence of culturally loaded hijra idiom. In doing so, the narrative reimagines and reimages the effeminate male body in the language without routing it through the hijra / kothi lexicon, though some scholars find this problematic (Aniruddha Datta 2015:174). Rather than an act of erasing or pushing certain existing identities to further margins, it is problematizing our monolithic versions. Furthermore, it gives a nuanced/ subtle way in which both characters perceive their respective identities. This is encapsulated effectively in Datta‟s comment:

The film positions their [Abhiroop and Chapal] respective narratives of gender variance and identity in terms of the archetypical contrast between „tradition‟ and „modernity‟, which is further aligned with a dichotomy between the elite and the vernacular (174).

This can be illustrated with a few scenes from the film.

Figure151-52. Young Chapal laments the loss of hair when his head is being shaven. APG.

Chapal‟s realization of himself as a “woman trapped in man‟s body” is reiterated by him time and again. As the shoot begins he says, “I sometimes wonder why god had no mind on his work. When he made me, gave me everything except the right body!” (APG).

193

However, this realization comes to him early at the age of fifteen. After the death of his mother he laments the loss of his hair more than the loss of his mother. The scene, depicting this subjective pain, has sympathetic treatment of the subject; while his head is shaven off (figure 152) the young Chapal cries. Quite contrary to the notion of emasculation, the narrative produces the sense of being de-feminized. For young Chapal, the act of shaving his head is stripping him of his feminine self that he has come to associate. His body thus becomes a direct locus of social control. Recollecting this moment Chapal Bhaduri (voice over) tells to the camera:

After Ma died, they all ganged up on me, insisted that I shave my head… I said, no. My sister is not doing it, Why should I? (Pause) They had to shave my head and make a „man‟ of me (APG).

Surprisingly, a person like Chapal who was relatively unfamiliar with the modern and Western discourse of gender speaks of gender as „making‟ than „being‟. The extra diegetic sound of music that is superimposed into, the frame grows increasingly compassionate. In the next shot after Chapal takes dip in the river, he refuses to set out of river without covering his bare body (Figure 153).

Figure 153-6: Young Chapal perceives his body as feminine and covers it with the gamacha. APG.

Only his sister seems to understand his plight and throws a gamcha into the water. The young Chapal covers the upper front of his body in the fashion as a woman would cover her bosom (Figure.154-6). The camera thus frames Chapal‟s „feminine‟ perception of his biologically „masculine‟ body, constructing a non-biological woman.

194

Chapal continues to perceive himself as woman as he joins jatra at very early age.

Figure157-58: Chapal offstage performing culturally definable „woman‟ persona sometimes in bridal ceremonial cloths and sometimes in an ordinary saree. APG.

According to Butler (1990), “performativity” describes the culturally-scripted character of identity. Simone de Beauvoir‟s famously known statement that “one is not born a woman, but rather becomes one” is revisited by Butler who comments, “There is nothing in her account that guarantees that the “one” who becomes a woman is necessarily female" (12). Following this rhetoric Chatterjee (2009) aptly points out

Bhaduri … becomes a woman just as any female becomes a woman: by taking on the cultural markers of womanhood…Gender is for him a nomadic activity marked by fixity-resistant flux, ever flitting amongst the marked and labeled patriarchal sites of gender on the regulatory and fictive map (para 8).

While, these remarks of Chatterjee are in the light of real life Bhaduri‟s on-stage persona, the on-screen Bhaduri dons the „woman‟s role even in his off stage life, while living with his lovers, Kumarbabu and Tushar.

Abhiroop who impersonates the young Chapal, brings out Chapal more in the frame of a „Bengali‟ woman (figure 157-58). This has more to do with his imagination of Chapal‟s personality than the real life Chapal Bhaduri. Rituparno Ghosh also said in an interview “The Chapal I am playing is an imagination of Roop, the filmmaker, though it is based on

195

facts” (Reshmi Sengupta, 2009 n.p.). Ironically, Chapal‟s story becomes a cover for Abhiroop to bring out his fancies of playing „woman‟.

However, Chapal understanding of his body and that of Abhiroop‟s is very different. Abhiroop despite his effiminate dressing, and behavioral pattern, maintains his own perspective on self identity. In a scene towards the end, when the local police acting on behalf of the villages of Hetampur interrupt the shooting, Abhiroop fumes and contemplates going to the police station to protest, Chapal advises Abhiroop to stay behind.

Chapal : Let men do men‟s work. Abhiroop : (Smiling at Chapal tolerantly) Do you really think of yourself as woman, Chapal da? Chapal : Oh my! If I thought I was a man, there would be no problem. Why? Don‟t you? Abhiroop : (Definantly) No. Chapal : The Lord started making you a woman and then made a mistake? Abhiroop : No, I don‟t. I think women are one category, men another, and we are a third category (APG).

By claiming the “thirdness” Abhroop reappropriates the “transvestite” as one of the sexes. This position of Abhiroop bears resemblance to Rituparno Ghosh‟s own claim about his identity. Ghosh in an interview to the Kolkata based daily The Telegraph said, “I consider myself privileged because of my gender fluidity, the fact that I am in between. I don‟t consider myself a woman and I don‟t want to become a woman” (qtd in Datta 174). Whether he is understood as „middle‟ or „third‟, Abhiroop confidently claims his position outside the gender binary and quietly ridicules Chapal for seeming a naïve, binary-gendered belief of being a woman in (wrongly) male body. This certainly brings out Abhiroop‟s attempt to establish himself superior to Chapal Bhaduri, through his articulation of his sexual self which modernity discourse of the Queer allows him. However, what is even more interesting is Chapal‟s reaction that the camera captures.It

196

shows that he does not subscribe to Abhiroop‟s idea of the „third‟ self. Aniruddha Datta (2015) comments: […] Abhiroop‟s gender bending persona is contrasted with Chapal‟s apparent espousal of old-fashioned gender roles (men‟s work). This follows from a broader schematic contrast in the film between Abhiroop as the English-speaking middle class director from the metropolis and Chapal as the representative of the „traditional‟ folk theatre of Bengal (the scenes featuring Chapal are mostly in Bangla, the scenes with Abhiroop mostly in English. The film positions their respective narratives of gender variance and identity in terms of the archetypical contrast between „tradition‟ and „modernity‟, which is further aligned with a dichotomy between the elite and the vernacular (171).

According to Datta the film illustrates some of the stakes of framing (trans)gendered selves and identities vis-à-vis narratives of class, modernity and progress. Datta also laments the fact that in this process the film suppresses the agency, narratives and histories of working class or lower caste gender variant persons and communities; in effect positioning them, as the subaltern others to the relatively liberated transgendered subjects portrayed by Rituparno (171-172). Datta seems to sideline the fact that the narrative does not frame or position Chapal Bhaduri as naïve despite Abhiroop‟s „sophisticated‟ articulation of the „thirdness‟ of his self. This allows two versions of transgendered self, exist side by side. In fact, the narrative also effectively demonstrates that Abhiroop, who has the privileged access to a class/caste-restricted narrative of bourgeois modernity, is essentially as isolated as the unprivileged Chapal Bhaduri. This is understandable from a sequence where there is disagreement between Chapal Bhaduri and Abhiroop, over which part of his personal life, can and should be documented. Abhroop imposes his superiority. Chapal who notices Abhiroop‟s sudden depression due to the arrival of Basu‟s wife makes him realize, why certain things need not enter the public domain.

197

Figure. 159. The Frame captures the essential solitude of the „out‟ image of Abhiroop and the „closeted‟ image of Chapal. APG.

Chapal Say:

Ever since his wife arrived this morning, I can see what you are going through… suppose you are asked to repeat all in public? A poor actor who was rich once and is pauper now…that‟s one truth. But the real truth, about you and me is of no value to the world, brother (APG).

In a mid long shot position the camera captures Abhiroop and Chapal in a frame. Abhiroop is further framed in an open door, reflecting his „out‟ status, whereas Chapal is framed in a barred window, indicating his „closeted‟ status. This frame within frame technique thus presents the characters‟ seemingly disparate positions. However, in light of Chapal‟s remark, the viewers understand the irony. Despite differences, both are essentially isolated and their truth is of no value to the world. Chapal‟s remark questions the discourse of visibility as a liberatory force. Bakshi is apt in his observation that the film “quite realistically engages with the filp side of increasing queer visibility” (117).

„Theatre‟ and „Cinema‟ as Sites of Queer Erotica

The film positions queer desires and romances within the discourse of „theatre‟ and „cinema‟. On the one hand is Chapal Bhaduri, an actor of open theater in Bengal, who was a closeted transgender for the fear of social ostracism but was openly accepted as a

198

cross-dressing actor, and on the other is the modern urban filmmaker, who is open about his sexuality but is still negotiating his gender identity. In the course of narrative development, both jatra and cinema become signs of queer license and nomadic spaces in which the characters are able to harbor their homoerotic and romantic relationships. Ghosh‟s comment reveals this aspect:

[…] people who used to work in jatra belonged to a forbidden world. Jatra was never considered high art like Bangla theatre. The world of cinema, like jatra, too is a forbidden world, which is actually the world of license...the license that Roop and Basu…take in their relationship. It is almost like a social license, which applies to their personal relationship as well. And so, it becomes their erotic playground‟ (Reshmi Sengupta, 2009 n.p.).

Throughout the narrative, jatra and cinema becomes a backdrop for the protagonists to engage in romantic relation. More than Abhiroop and Chapal, these spaces become lodging for Kumarbabu and Basu, where they can evade their societal and familial gaze and indulge in erotic affairs. Besides, the site of cinema, and theatre, becomes symbol of home away from home, only breeding a queer family. Ghosh says:

When Roop and Basu are away from their homes, they create their own little home. They spend time together; they become a family... just like a jatra team when it‟s travelling together. This sense of family in a nomadic life existed in Chapal and Kumar‟s relationship too, and I think the correlation is important (Reshmi Sengupta 2009 n.p.).

Thus, the forms of performing arts, which are professional domains, become sites of seeking pleasure and pursing desire.

199

Figure 160: Old Chapal being filmed with a young Figure 161: Abhiroop directing the shoot with his Chapal‟s frame in the background. APG. crew. APG.

Following Foucauldian logic, queer theorists such as Judith Butler maintain that the formation of “subject” be it gendered or sexed, is an important discourse. The formation of queer “subject” in film is influenced by the theatre and cinema apparatus. Chakraborty makes a very important observation that „… subject is formed not only by performative behavioural patterns, but also by the stage and camera as “second order” signifieds. In case of Bhaduri the stage creates the space where he is able to performatively construct the identity, with which he identifies himself. “The stage becomes an embodied space where the spatial and psychological consciousness of Bhaduri is constructed, often through the mythical subtexts of local legends” (54). On the other hand, camera is to Abhiroop what stage is to Chapal. “The camera becomes his tool of protest. While making documentary film on Chapal Bhaduri, he almost uses it as „a psycho-biographical frame of reference, to express his point of view, thereby using representation as an episteme for constructing his body as a cultural site” (54).

Reclaiming Culture by Queering

The film introduces a new language to articulate and perceive queer sexualities, especially the androgenous ones. The film alludes to cultural icons and myths as well as redeploys them as signifiers of rootedness of the transgendered and bisexual subjects. One of the strong imagery is the folksong and the Vaishnav Kirtan “Banamali…”.The

200

predicament of a transgender subject as projected in the film, can perhaps be summated by the lyrics used in the film:

Bonomali tumi, poro jonome hoio Radha/ Sundoro biroho mone hobe jeno/ keno kande bodhu bala/ poro jonome hoio Radha…

A communicative translation of this could be: “Dear Lord, Be born as Radha in the next life/ Affected loneliness will seem as eternal tears of your sin/ Be born as Radha in the next life”. The film redeploys the trope of divine association between Radha and Krishna, by weaving in Vaishnav/ feminine culture and evokes Chaitanya the medieval radical, early Bengali jatra (folk theatre) at the same time, Tagore‟s music, to illustrate a historical trajectory of androgyny or fluid sexual identity (Sangeeta Datta 43).

As Chakraborty points out, “apart from the usual links with loneliness and exile, the myth song also transposes the world of myth into the narrative of body politics. The “men” in the protagonists are questing desperately for liberation, to find their individual “subject” in the social narrative, but like the mythical Radha, their timeless suffering seems to have no end. If only Krishna knew what it is to be born as Radha!” (55)

Bakshi and Sen make a comment that

Such studied appropriation of the queer within sanitised spaces of the neo- bhadralok culture is to some extent effortlessly complished by the deployment of quasi-mythical subtexts which help establish non- normative sexualities as “always already there”, and therefore their naturalness: Arekti Premer Golpo returns to Gaudiya Vaishnavism28 and the androgynous figure of Lord Chaitanya” (212).

28 Bakshi and Sen mention that Gaudiya Vaishnava ideology valorizes androgyny as celebrated in the philosophical oneness of Radha and Krishna. Radha is seen as Krishna’s alienated self.

201

The Image of Lord Chaitanya

Abhiroop alludes to androgynous aspect of Vaishnava theology while explaining to Uday about why he wishes to shoot at the Gaurango temple in Hetampur. He calls the temple a “nice symbol”. He explains to Uday:

[…] I think Chaitanya is the epitome of the cultural androgyny of this country. Radha and Krishna are almost symbiotic in him. Just think… he is the first person to stand against all forms of discrimination… he is bringing the concept liberation through music, creating street bands….500 years ago! And all this happened so organically (APG).

For Abhiroop as well as for the film, it becomes necessary to articulate the concept of liberation, by routing it through their own cultural imagery rather than borrowing from Western discourses of liberation. In a dramatic turn of actions, Abhiroop who has been maintaining long hair resembling that of women, shaves off his head in a local roadside salon developing resemblance to the image of Lord Chaitanya (Bakshi and Sen 213). This becomes an attempt at finding a self expression by appropriating images from within one‟s own culture. Thus, Abhiroop holds the agency of configuring an androgynous self for him.

Caught between the Battle of Lenses

The film‟s conscious deployment of media apparatus, in various forms, reveals complexities associated with the queer visibility. Besides the dominant presence of the documentary camera lenses, the narrative entrenches electronic and print media through a TV journalist and newspaper reporters.

In the film soon after shoot begins, a media reporter comes to take an interview of the director. The narrative through this dialogue between Abhiroop and the reporter, not only cuts open the prevalent bias against homosexuality reflected in the journalist‟s comments but also positions Abhiroop Sen, in an agentive role to break the silence and voice his concerns. The conversation between the two can be analysed.

202

Figure162. T.V. Reporter interviewing Abhiroop Figure 163. Momo reading from a newspaper Sen. APG. about the documentary film. APG.

The Reporter : Is your film focusing on his career or his sexuality? Abhiroop (shocked) : Sexuality? I am not doing an ad film on Viagra! The Reporter : I am sorry… I meant sexual preference. Abhiroop : And why would that be particularly relevant? The Reporter : I mean you are making a documentary on THE Chapal Bhaduri! So… Abhiroop : Suppose I was making a film on …say Amitabh Bhacchan would it be still relevant? … The reporter : Obviously not! Abhiroop : What is so obvious about it? The Reporter : Because it is normal. Abhiroop : Ok and what makes you such an authority on what‟s normal and what‟s not? (APG)

The scene is marked by the use of linguistic discourse on the normative. This becomes the signifier of Abhiroop as a modern metropolitan queer subject. Abhiroop is able to talk back and question the obviousness, naturalness and authority. Feeling deeply insulted due to defeat of his „masculine‟ heteronormative ego by a queer „efiminate‟ man who questions his authority, the journalist in his homophobic pang, calls Abhiroop a “faggot”. The scene has more to it than this. The narrative effectively projects a queer subject who talks back and returns the homophobic gaze. For a queer audience this offers a position to

203

associate with the character of Abhiroop. Besides the journalist‟s reactions, the newspaper reports with sensational headlines such as, “GAY BONDING GOES FESTIVE” also bring to the surface, the dominant homophobic discourse.

Bhadralok versus Bhadralok

Foucault (1980) denies the existence of power relations without resistance. Moreover, for him, this resistance is formed right at the point where the relations of power exercised (142). Thus, resistance neither predates the power it opposes, nor does it issue from a site external to power. Rather, it relies upon and grows out of the situation against which it struggles. In context of the film‟s narrative this becomes applicable to the notion of Bhadralok. The conflict that the film brings out is not the Bhadralok versus the Western influenced cultural outsider. It in fact is Bhadralok versus Bhadralok. The narrative offers ample scope to elaborate this aspect.

Figure164. Men from the Bhadralok neighbourhood arguing with the film team. APG.

Soon after the start of shooting, project is disrupted by men, mainly old generation, from Chapal Bhaduri‟s neighbourhood in northern part of Kolkata. The men accuse it as the project of indecency. One of them says: You can‟t change society in half an hour! Homosexuality, sexual rights, free sex life… deal with such things in Delhi… or go to her country (points at Dorothy, film producer who is from the UK). This is no red light area. It‟s respectable locality (APG).

204

Another man says:

You at least should have realized that Kolkata is not some foreign city! What effect has today‟s news had on the young? What impression (APG)?

Basu tries to convince the men by putting a logical argument; however, they in return make a remark, “You are perverts! Promoting “homos” and disrupting society!” (APG)

The scene becomes important as it foregrounds the dominant conservative and hetero- patriarchal views effectively. It highlights the binary that is deliberately established by such a discourse which considers „homosexuality‟ as associated with „indecency‟, „perversion‟, „red light area‟, „Delhi‟ and „foreign‟ as opposed to Bhadralok and Kolkata. While this scene draws out the dominant Bhadralok, opposed to it, is the narrative of Abhiroop Sen who comes from the same Bhadralok and resists power with the privileges that he gets being part of the Bhadralok. Abhroop Sen is not established as an outsider to Kolkata or Bengali Bhadralok culture. Bakshi and Parjanya Sen (2015) argue that the film, inserts the discourse of sexual non-conformity into consciousness of the neo- bhadrolok class through the upper middle class set up. They further add that the film- maker Abhiroop Sen‟s neo consumerist class-consciousness is visible through his designer clothes, his makeup, luxurious car rides and other luxuries. Moreover, Abhiroop‟s attachment with his family, especially his mother to whom he frequently talks on phone, his strong views on how „Kolkata‟ be pronounced and his liking for Tagore‟s poetry, all become the signifiers of Bhadralok sensibilities. The strategy that he uses to resist the hetero-patriarchal dominance is through open gender defiance as opposed to the subversive strategies of resistance.

Reimaging Indian Queer Male Sexuality

Bakshi in his appraisal of the queer subjects in Arekti Premer Golpo remarks that the “queer” stereotype that the film has generated is essentialist (124). This is a reductionist assessment of the characters. Bakshi does not take a note of the subtle ways in which the film challenges dominant stereotypes of „effiminate‟ men. Moreover, very few critics pay attention to the characters pitted against Chapal Bhaduri and Abhiroop Sen. Hence, an

205

assessment of the „effiminate‟ men and „bisexual‟ or sexually ambiguious male characters, is necessary. Basudeb Roy is a handsome, „masculine‟ bisexual partner of Abhiroop. As the narrative develops apparently strong and restrained, Basu‟s image crumbles and what the screen reveals, is a confused and weak bi-sexual man. According to P. Sajna (2014), “Basu stuns as the helpless bisexual man, torn between love and social restrictions. He fails out in his balancing acts and seeks recluse in a woman, betraying himself” (72). The usual effeminate / masculine man dichotomy that attributes, being in control, in power, being desirable to a „masculine‟ man while being powerless and vulnerable to an effeminate man is revisited in the film. The film in a significant way subverts this equation. Basu‟s physical and social masculinity does not get translated into his emotional strength. In almost all the frames, the narrative frames Basu as longing for Abhiroop‟s company. It is Basu who is framed seeking pleasure from Abhiroop. Figure 167 and 68 produce a powerful image of Abhiroop by positioning him as restrained, emotionally strong and desirable as opposed to desiring, breaking and weak Basu. This paradigmatic shift in gay iconography is certainly radical and unique.

Figure 165-66. Basu‟s physical and emotional longing for Abhiroop. APG. Following Datta‟s position (175) that Arekti… negotiates between Chapal‟s binary based model of gender and Abhiroop Sen‟s ternary model of gender, it can be said that the film in its critique of these models, not only seeks to reclaim but even celebrate the thirdness and gender liminality of its protagonists. The film, in doing so, extends gay effeminacy, only subverting the common stereotypes associated with it, into statements of gender defiance. This certainly is a major departure from attempts by Indian middle class gay men, to counter the stereotype of gay male effeminacy by masculinising gay identity.

206